What Motivates You? The Relationship between Preferences for Redistribution and Attitudes towards Immigration

What Motivates You? The Relationship between Preferences for Redistribution and Attitudes towards Immigration Abstract: The tension between immigration and redistribution has attracted increased attention in recent years. Many authors argue, based on economic self-interest theory, that there is a negative relationship between support for redistribution and preferred levels of immigration. Although we acknowledge the role of economic self-interest, we argue that there is in fact a multitude of motivations that moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration. Extending a model of preferences for immigration, we show empirically that self-interested and strongly reciprocal individuals experience a tension between immigration and redistribution, while egalitarians do not experience this tension. Humanitarians express a general willingness to help those who are worse off, immigrants included, but this motivation does not affect their preferences for redistribution. Key words: welfare state, immigration, welfare chauvinism, self-interest, strong reciprocity, egalitarianism, humanitarianism, public opinion data Word count: 7 783 words (main text and endnotes) Patrick Emmenegger (corresponding author) University of Southern Denmark Campusvej 55 5230 Odense M, Denmark Email: emm@sam.sdu.dk / Phone: 0045 6550 4495 / Fax: 0045 6550 2280 Robert Klemmensen University of Southern Denmark Campusvej 55 5230 Odense, Denmark Email: rkl@sam.sdu.dk / Phone: 0045 6550 2194 / Fax: 0045 6550 2280 Acknowledgements: A previous version of this paper was presented at the annual conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago 2010. We are particularly grateful for comments by Marc Helbling, Jon Kvist, Margaret E. Peters, John P. Schultz, the two anonymous reviewers, and the editors of Comparative Politics. We thank John Sides and Jack Citrin for their support in the replication of their model. All the remaining shortcomings are the authors responsibility. 1

Introduction Immigration has been called one of the most important challenges for Western democracies in the 21 st century, 1 and this is most certainly true for Western European welfare states. Many contributions state that there is a tension between immigration and redistribution and emphasize competition over scarce resources as one of the main driving forces behind this tension. 2 Given that immigrants are more often dependent on social benefits than the native population, 3 self-interested citizens are expected to either stop supporting redistribution or to start opposing immigration. For self-interested and especially low-skilled citizens redistribution and free immigration seem incompatible. In this article, we analyze the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration. Given the increasing levels of immigration to Western Europe, selfinterested voters have reason to experience a tension between immigration and redistribution. In particular, if voters support redistribution out of self-interested motives, they are likely to stop supporting redistribution or start opposing immigration. These voters are likely to expect fewer social benefits because they expect the newly arrived immigrants to lower the mean income and divert scarce economic resources away from the native population. However, not all voters support the welfare state out of self-interested motives. Some voters might be characterized by social preferences such as egalitarianism, humanitarianism, or strong reciprocity. 4 Just like self-interest, these social preferences might moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration. Even more importantly, strongly egalitarian, humanitarian or reciprocal voters might not experience a tension between immigration and redistribution. Whether there is a tension 2

between immigration and redistribution at the population level depends on the distribution of these four motivations within a given population. We expect that strongly reciprocal voters, just like self-interested voters, experience a tension between immigration and redistribution; however we expect them to do so for different reasons. Strongly reciprocal individuals judge the deservingness of societal groups by evaluating the legitimacy of these groups intentions, actions, and entitlements. If they consider these groups intentions and actions illegitimate, they are willing to punish them even at personal cost. 5 In fact, many Europeans are very suspicious of immigrants intentions and actions. According to survey data, a majority of Europeans think that minority groups in their countries abuse the social benefit system, that the availability of social benefits attracts immigration in the first place and that most refugee applicants are not in real fear of persecution in their home countries. 6 Thus, strongly reciprocal individuals who support redistribution are unlikely to support high levels of immigration because many of them question immigrants intentions and actions. Both self-interest and strong reciprocity explain the tension between redistribution and immigration. However, other motivations might not lead to such a tension. An obvious candidate is humanitarianism, i.e. the sense of obligation to help those in need regardless of deservingness. 7 Considering the socio-economic conditions of immigrants and refugees in particular, there is an obvious need for help, independent of the distributional outcomes of such humanitarian interventions. The final motivation, egalitarianism, considers social welfare a social right. While humanitarians focus on the truly disadvantaged, immigrant or not, and are not concerned with 3

the distribution of wealth in a society, egalitarians want to help the worse off precisely because they care about redistribution. Put differently, a more egalitarian distribution of wealth is a goal in itself and is best achieved by redistribution and extensive state involvement. 8 If egalitarianism is understood in global terms, as for instance suggested by Gunnar Myrdal, 9 and given that many immigrants to Western Europe tend to be poorer than Western Europeans, then egalitarians are unlikely to experience a tension between redistribution and high levels of immigration. In the empirical part, we demonstrate that these four motivations moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration. Using Sides and Citrin s 10 important study on the determinants of immigration policy preferences as a starting point, we show that the negative relationship between support for redistribution and support for high levels of immigration grows stronger, the more respondents are characterized by high levels of self-interest and the more respondents stress moral behavior. In contrast, this negative relationship grows weaker, and eventually disappears, if respondents are very supportive of egalitarianism. Finally, as expected, humanitarianism has a strong effect on support for immigration, but it does not moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration. This article makes two contributions to the literature. First, by demonstrating that four different motivations moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration, it shows that motivations other than self-interest drive voters in Western Europe when they gauge the relationship between immigration and redistribution. This is an important theoretical finding because the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration is a least likely scenario for observing 4

motivations other than self-interest. Respondents are unlikely to know the immigrants in question, to identify with them, or to see them again. Thus, we can expect self-interest to be a particularly important motivation. 11 Nevertheless, we observe all four motivations in this anonymous one-shot interaction. Moreover, we observe this heterogeneity in the realm of motivations in a context that is identical for all respondents (a computer-assisted telephone interview). This provides strong evidence that heterogeneous preferences are not only the result of repeated interactions 12 or the institutional context, 13 but also a fundamental feature of human societies. 14 Second, we add to the literature on the relationship between immigration and redistribution by providing empirical evidence on the different motivations that moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration. Our results show that there is not necessarily a tension between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration. Rather, there are alternative motivations that lead some individuals to support (or reject) both immigration and redistribution. In the next section, we contrast four types of motivations and show how they can be analyzed and compared using the example of immigration and redistribution. After presenting the data and the operationalization, we discuss the empirical results. A final section concludes. Four motivations moderating the relationship between redistribution and immigration Why does immigration endanger European welfare states? Alesina and Glaeser 15 argue that when there are significant numbers of minorities among the poor, then the majority population can be roused against transferring money to people who are different from themselves. Broadly speaking, two strands in the literature explain why the majority 5

population opposes transferring money to immigrants 16 : the first strand emphasizes the role of economic self-interest, while the second strand emphasizes ethnic prejudice and xenophobia. Although we acknowledge the role of ethnic prejudice and xenophobia, this article focuses on the role of socio-economic motivations because we want to demonstrate that a multitude of socio-economic motivations moderate the relationship between immigration and redistribution. However, we control in the empirical analysis for the effects of ethnic prejudice and xenophobia through a battery of control variables. Among the studies focusing on socio-economic motivations, most have stressed the role of self-interest. According to van Oorschot and Uunk 17, economic self-interest theory postulates that hostile attitudes between members of two racial or ethnic groups reflect an underlying clash of personal self-interests. Individuals develop negative attitudes towards individual with whom they are in direct competition. Crepaz and Damron 18 add that the more comprehensive the welfare state is, the more tolerant natives are of immigrants because welfare chauvinism is connected to the competition over scarce resources. Although we acknowledge the important role economic self-interest plays in the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration, we believe that due to the dominant focus on economic self-interest, authors have ignored the fact that there is considerable heterogeneity in the realm of socio-economic motivations. More concretely, the literature on welfare state support has clearly shown that economic self-interest is not the only reason voters support redistribution. Other motivations like egalitarianism and reciprocity also matter. However, if voters support redistribution because they believe that all people in the world should be treated as equals on dimensions such as economic and social status, why would they experience a tension between immigration and redistribution? 6

Based on the literature on welfare state support, especially contributions by behavioral economists and political psychologists, we argue that at least four motivations moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration and need to be clearly delineated: (1) self-interest, (2) egalitarianism, (3) humanitarianism, and (4) strong reciprocity. These four motivations vary along two dimensions (see Table 1). Humanitarians and egalitarians are characterized by a general willingness to help the needy by either targeting social benefits at the needy (humanitarianism) or by fundamentally redistributing economic resources within a society (egalitarianism). In contrast, selfinterested individuals only support redistribution if it is for their own good, while strongly reciprocal individuals only support redistribution if the underlying intentions for redistribution are considered fair. 19 The second dimension measures the general willingness to punish deviant behavior at personal cost. Egalitarians and strongly reciprocal individuals punish deviant behavior if the behavior is considered unfair, i.e. if initial actions have caused an overly unequal distribution of economic resources (egalitarianism) or if initial actions have violated norms of fairness (strong reciprocity). In contrast, humanitarians and self-interested individuals do not punish at their own expense either because their altruism is unconditional (humanitarians) or because their utility is solely a function of their own economic payoff (self-interested individuals). Below we discuss these four motivations in detail and explain how they link preferences for redistribution to attitudes towards immigration. 20 [Table 1] There are two main reasons why a self-interested individual might support redistribution. First, given that the median voter s income is lower than the mean income, redistribution will 7

benefit the median voter if taxes are linear and benefits are paid as lump sum transfers. 21 Second, redistribution can function as insurance for risk-averse citizens or citizens with special skill investments. 22 Thus, individuals motivated by self-interest support redistribution as long as it is for their good. How does this relate to immigration? Self-interested individuals are likely to observe a tension between preferences for redistribution and liberal immigration policies. This is best illustrated by Okun s 23 leaky bucket metaphor. Okun argues that due to inefficiencies caused by taxation and administrative costs, the net benefit to the recipient is likely to be smaller than the cost to those footing the bill. That is, part of the money is lost in the redistributive process. The leaky bucket problem is likely to become more important in a globalized world as the internationally mobile factors of production tend to be owned by the rich, enabling them to evade taxation. This is what Bowles 24 refers to as the generalized leaky bucket problem. However, the leaky bucket metaphor also applies to immigration. In the presence of immigration, low-income natives may receive fewer benefits as a result of redistribution because newly arrived immigrants are likely to decrease the mean income. Consequently, some low-income natives may find that they are net contributors rather than net beneficiaries of redistribution and if redistribution is supported out of self-interested motives, these individuals cannot be expected to support liberal immigration policies. 25 Self-interested motivations stand in sharp contrast to egalitarian motivations, or what behavioral economists refer to as inequity aversion. 26 Egalitarians want to achieve a more egalitarian distribution of economic resources by increasing other persons economic payoff if these persons economic pay is below a certain threshold value. Similarly, egalitarians want to decrease other persons economic payoff if it is above a certain threshold value. This has 8

two important implications: First, egalitarians show a general willingness to help the poor because this coincides with their general preference for a more egalitarian distribution of resources. Second, egalitarians are willing to punish deviant behavior, in this case claiming a disproportionate amount of the economic payoff, even at personal cost. 27 Both stand in sharp contrast to self-interested motivations, which are characterized by a general unwillingness to help those worse off and a general unwillingness to punish deviant behavior if the punishment promises no future reward. We expect true egalitarians to consider the living conditions of immigrants. Otherwise, it would be difficult to distinguish egalitarianism from self-interest as the likelihood of being a beneficiary of egalitarian policies increases with restrictive immigration policies. Moreover, such an individual would simply support egalitarianism within certain closed groups, while disregarding inequality between these groups. Such a social preference could hardly be called true egalitarianism. 28 Put differently, in an increasingly globalized world, egalitarians have to consider the world beyond the national welfare state. The famous social democrat Gunnar Myrdal formulated this egalitarian position more than 50 years ago, when he wrote about the international class conflict : [We] know that mere political independence, without equal opportunity, economic progress, and the right to share wealth and power, will not be enough. In the end there is, in these world-wide problems, no practical alternative to international disintegration other than to initiate the development towards the democratic Welfare World [...]. We thus know that, if a new stability is to exist in the world, rich nations will have to be prepared to modify their economic policies in the interest of a broader sharing of opportunities. 29 9

Thus, for true egalitarians, the answer to globalization must be redistribution on the international level. Only this solution would be consistent with the ideals of liberty, equality, and brotherhood as already expressed in national welfare states. 30 The egalitarians position might seem far-fetched, or even utopian, at first sight. However, there is evidence of a positive correlation between equality at home and global redistribution. For instance, Noël and Thérien 31 observe a positive correlation between spending on social security and official development assistance. Thus, there seems to be a certain consistency in terms of institutionalized values and principles. For the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration, this implies that egalitarians are unlikely to observe a tension between redistribution and immigration. Rather, egalitarians can be expected to support both redistribution and immigration, as immigrants are likely to be very poor. Humanitarianism, or what behavioral economists refer to as unconditional altruism, is a third possible motivation. Feldman and Steenbergen 32 define humanitarianism as a sense of obligation to help those in need. As Fehr and Fischbacher 33 note, humanitarians value the economic resources allocated to a relevant reference agent positively. Moreover, humanitarians, or unconditional altruists, do not condition their behavior on the deservingness of others. 34 Consequently, humanitarians do not punish deviant behavior. 35 Note that unconditional altruism should not be confused with self-abandonment: Altruism refers to the willingness to help those in need even at personal cost, while unconditional refers to the absence of conditions attached to such help. Thus, humanitarians want to help 10

the needy, but they do not have strong feelings about redistribution in general (in contrast to egalitarians). Egalitarianism and humanitarianism are thus two different motivations. As Feldman and Steenbergen note, egalitarianism is associated with support for social welfare policies that involve extensive market intervention by the government. 36 In contrast, humanitarianism generates support for a much more limited set of policies, namely policies that redress immediate needs that arise in limited sections of the population. This also implies that humanitarianism is compatible with values such as the principle that people should take responsibility for solving their own problems. Humanitarians advocate interventions only when problems become too large for a single individual to solve. 37 With regard to immigration, we expect humanitarians to stress the neediness of (some) immigrants. Thus, humanitarians might think of overloaded boats headed for the Mediterranean shores of Spain or Italy, or of hunger and misery in food-strapped Third World countries. Humanitarians are the opposite of Simmelian 38 metropolitan residents who protect themselves through intellectual processes against uninterrupted bombardment by outside stimuli. Humanitarians feel compassion with those in need and instead of thinking in terms of self-interest or equality feel obliged to help the needy wherever they come from. Finally, strong reciprocity is probably the most complex of the four motivations. Gintis et al. define strong reciprocity as a predisposition to cooperate with others, and to punish (at personal cost, if necessary) those who violate the norms of cooperation. 39 A strongly reciprocal individual responds kindly to actions perceived as kind and adversely to actions perceived as hostile. Whether an action is perceived as kind or hostile depends on the 11

intentions underlying the action. If the action is considered fair or legitimate, strongly reciprocal individuals respond with cooperation. In contrast, unfair or illegitimate action is punished. Experimental studies have shown that the behavior of a considerable number of participants deviated from self-interest. These participants behaved altruistically as long as others did so as well, but punished those who behaved unfairly according to prevalent norms of cooperation. Although some participants always behave in a purely self-interested manner, strongly reciprocal participants generally outnumbered these self-interested individuals. 40 It is important to distinguish strong reciprocity from weak reciprocity. Weak reciprocity denotes reciprocal behavior due to expected future repayments and can therefore be difficult to distinguish from self-interested behavior. In contrast, strong reciprocity denotes reciprocal or cooperative behavior even at personal cost and in the absence of future repayment, that is, as long as the action is considered fair. Note that strong reciprocity also comprises costly punishment, i.e. strongly reciprocal individuals are willing to punish deviant behavior even at personal cost. Strong reciprocity helps us understand why some groups are considered more deserving than others. 41 A strongly reciprocal individual responds to needs as a function of actions preceding these needs. If a need is considered legitimate, for instance because physical incapacity renders gainful labor market participation impossible or because the needy person has a long history of contributing to common goods, strongly reciprocal individuals respond with cooperation (i.e. social support), otherwise they refuse to support. Evaluating fairness and legitimacy is easiest in small and local groups, but public policies such as immigration and social policies are the opposite. Public policies are national and anonymous and individuals have to rely on mental maps or the recent history to evaluate actions and intentions. 42 This 12

puts immigrants in a difficult spot when they face strongly reciprocal individuals because trust and cooperation are highest in small and homogeneous communities. 43 In addition, the public perception of motives for immigration is very negative. Survey data shows that a clear majority of Europeans thinks that the welfare state is the cause of immigration, that minority groups abuse the welfare state, and that most refugee applicants are bogus, that is, in no real fear of persecution in their home countries. 44 As a result, strongly reciprocal individuals are likely to oppose liberal immigration policies. At the same time though, strongly reciprocal individuals are likely to support redistribution, but only as long as redistribution is restricted to the deserving needy. 45 Thus, strongly reciprocal individuals are likely to experience a tension between immigration and redistribution because they want to prevent that undeserving immigrants receive social benefits that should be reserved for the deserving poor. In total, we argue that these four motivations moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration in very different ways (see Table 1). We expect to observe a tension between preferences for redistribution and immigration in the case of self-interested and strongly reciprocal individuals. In contrast, we expect egalitarianism to attenuate this tension. Finally, we expect humanitarianism to not moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration because humanitarianism is only related to attitudes towards immigration, but not preferences for redistribution. Data and operationalization The empirical analysis takes Sides and Citrin s seminal study as a starting point. Sides and Citrin use the first wave of the European Social Survey (2002-03) to assess the influence of 13

material interests and cultural identities on public opinion about immigration in 20 European countries. 46 They show that cultural and national identity, economic interests as well as the level of information about immigration are important determinants of attitudes towards immigration. We rely on their study in order to safeguard our analysis from allegations of model misspecification and omitted variable bias. 47 A second advantage of Sides and Citrin s specification is that the authors use a continuous dependent variable. Since our theoretical argument is based on interaction effects between preferences for redistribution and the four motivations that moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration, the usage of a continuous dependent simplifies the interpretation of the results of the statistical analysis considerably. The dependent variable, preferred level of immigration, is operationalized using a series of questions that refer to different kinds of immigrant populations. Respondents were first asked the following question: To what extent do you think [country] should allow people of the same race or ethnic group as most [country] people to come and live here? Subsequently, they were asked the same question about immigrants of a different race or ethnic group. Finally, respondents were asked about people from richer countries in Europe, poorer countries in Europe, richer countries outside Europe and poorer countries outside Europe. Respondents were given the following options: allow many, allow some, allow a few or allow none. The six survey items are almost perfectly correlated (Cronbach s alpha = 0.94), which shows that respondents rarely differentiate between different groups of immigrants. Rather, the stereotypical perception of immigrants seems to be one of individuals who abuse the welfare state, cost extra tax money, and take jobs from natives. 48 We scale each item to range from 0 to 1 and then calculate the average for each respondent. The resulting dependent 14

variable ranges from 0 to 1 with a mean of 0.48 and a standard deviation of 0.24 (N=32 886). Higher values indicate opposition to liberal immigration policies. Preferences for redistribution have been operationalized using the following question: Please say to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statement: The government should take measures to reduce differences in income levels. Respondents were given the following five options: agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and disagree strongly. Higher values indicate support for redistribution. We measure the four moderator variables using very general operationalizations that do not refer explicitly to immigration or redistribution. 49 Self-interest is operationalized using the following survey question (emphasis added): To be a good citizen, how important would you say it is for a person to support people who are worse off than themselves? Respondents were given the choice among eleven possible responses, ranging from 0 (extremely unimportant) to 10 (extremely important). We expect self-interested individuals to consider supporting those worse off as unimportant. 50 The other three moderator variables are operationalized using short descriptions of fictitious persons. After hearing this short description, respondents were asked how much this fictitious person was or was not like them. We use the following three descriptions (emphasis added): (1) It is important to her/him always to behave properly. S/he wants to avoid doing anything people would say is wrong (strong reciprocity). (2) S/he thinks it is important that every person in the world is treated equally. S/he believes everyone should have equal opportunities in life (egalitarianism). (3) It is very important to her/him to help the people around her/him. S/he wants to care for their well-being (humanitarianism). Table 2 displays the distribution of responses. 51 We are aware that some of the measures we use are imperfect operationalizations 15

of the underlying concept. However we do believe that we capture relevant variation in the underlying motivations by using the specified items. The pair wise correlations between the four motivations are generally modest indicating that they do in fact measure different underlying concepts. As expected, egalitarianism and selfinterest correlate negatively, however, at -0.192 the bivariate correlation is not problematic. In fact, the correlation between self-interest and humanitarianism is stronger (at -0.266). We observe the strongest pair wise correlation between egalitarianism and humanitarianism (at 0.310). However, note that we have different expectations for the moderating effects of egalitarianism and humanitarianism. While increasing levels of egalitarianism are supposed to weaken the tension between immigration and redistribution, humanitarianism is expected to have no moderating effect. Finally, most individuals are simultaneously characterized by different, potentially contradictory social preferences. This phenomenon is called ambivalence and implies that individuals have to choose between competing values when making decisions. 52 For instance, among the 10 934 respondents who think that it is very important to treat every person in the world equally (32.34 percent of all respondents), 3 087 consider it very important to always behave properly, 3 287 consider it very important to support people who are worse off, and 4 301 consider it very important to help the people around you. Thus, it could be that on the individual level several motivations simultaneously moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and preferred levels of immigration. [Table 2] 16

Following Sides and Citrin, we add a long list of control variables to our models: satisfaction with personal finances, satisfaction with income, income, employment status, preference for cultural unity, preference for national authority, comparative estimate of the level of immigration (more or less than other European countries of same size), the difference between the actual share of foreign-born residents and the respondent s estimate as well as the interaction between these two variables, presence of immigrant friends, level of social trust, satisfaction with life, frequency of political discussion, self-placement on a left-right scale as well as the interaction between these two variables, self-identification as member of a minority group plus dummy variables for second generation individuals, naturalized individuals (more or less than ten years in country), non-citizens (more or less than ten years in country) plus control variables (age, education and gender). We have followed the documentation in Sides and Citrin and crosschecked with the authors (see the appendix for a discussion of the operationalization and theoretical expectations). 53 In the empirical analysis, we use both the full set and a restricted set of control variables (age, education, gender, income, labor market status, and political orientation). Both model specifications lead to the same conclusions. We thus only present the models with the full list of control variables because this is the more conservative specification. The results of the estimations with fewer control variables can be obtained on request. The models are estimated using weighted OLS regressions with country fixed effects to control for cross-national differences and clustered standard errors. This is a particularly conservative estimation strategy, which maximizes our confidence in the robustness of our results 54 and reflects the fact that we are primarily interested in how the four motivations moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards 17

immigration. Interaction effects are analyzed using graphical visualizations as recommended by Brambor et al. 55 Thus, the specification adopted in the empirical analysis is IMMIGRATION = β 0 + β 1 *REDISTRIBUTE + β 2 *MOTIVATION + β 3 *REDISTRIBUTE*MOTIVATION + β 4 *X 1 +... + β n *X n + ε, with the marginal effect being (δimmigration/δredistribute MOTIVATION) = b 1 + b 3 *MOTIVATION, and the variance being σ 2 = var(b 1 ) + MOTIVATION 2 *var(b 3 ) + 2*MOTIVATION*cov(b 1,b 3 ). IMMIGRATION refers to the preferred level of immigration, REDISTRIBUTE refers to preferences for redistribution and MOTIVATION refers to the four social preferences discussed in the theoretical part. X 1 to X n are the control variables as specified by Sides and Citrin. β 0 refers to the general intercept, β 1 to β n are the slopes of the explanatory variables and ε is the error term. Empirical analysis Table 3 provides the results of OLS regressions of preferred levels of immigration (high values indicating opposition to immigration) on preferences for redistribution, the motivations expected to moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration, and control variables. Model 1 shows the unconditional effect of preferences for redistribution on preferred levels of immigration, i.e. our dependent variable. Models 2 to 5 each contain one of the four moderator variables and its interaction with preferences for redistribution. Finally, Model 6 contains all four moderator variables and their interaction with preferences for redistribution. In all six models, we observe as far as 18

the control variables are concerned the same relationships as documented by Sides and Citrin. Thus, we are confident that our models are well specified. However, as our main focus is on the moderating effects of the four discussed motivations, we restrict our discussion of the empirical evidence to the interaction effects between preferences for redistribution and the four motivations. [Table 3] Model 1 in Table 3 shows that preferences for redistribution do not have a significant unconditional effect on preferred levels of immigration. This finding, however, does not rule out that there is in fact a systematic relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration because if there are several motivations moderating this relationship, then some of these motivations might offset each other. 56 We therefore turn to a systematic analysis of these four motivations. We are primarily interested in the moderating effects of the four motivations and not the unconditional effects of these variables. The most convenient way to analyze interaction effects is by using graphical representations. Figures 1a to 1d show, based on Model 6 in Table 4, the marginal effects of preferences for redistribution on the preferred level of immigration as the moderating variables change. Figure 1a displays the moderating effect of self-interest, Figure 1b shows the moderating effect of strong reciprocity, Figure 1c shows the moderating effect of egalitarianism, and, finally, Figure 1d shows the moderating effect of humanitarianism. In all graphical representations, the y-axis displays the marginal effect of the indicator for redistribution preferences, while the x-axis displays the motivations. The higher the score on the x-axis, the more the respondent exhibits a given motivation. 19

Figure 1a shows that the perceived tension between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration grows stronger, although not significant, the more respondents consider it unimportant to help those worse off (self-interest). Similarly, the perceived tension between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration grows stronger, as Figure 1b shows, the more respondents consider it unimportant to always behave properly (strong reciprocity). For respondents who believe that it is not important to always behave properly, the marginal effect of preferences for redistribution is significantly different from zero. Conversely, the perceived tension between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration grows weaker the more respondents consider it important to treat everybody equally (egalitarianism). As Figure 1c shows, the marginal effect of preferences for redistribution is negative and significantly different from zero for highly egalitarian respondents, thereby indicating that egalitarian respondents do not experience a tension between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration at all. Finally, the extent to which respondents think that it is important to help people around you (humanitarianism) does not moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and preferring lower levels of immigration. The coefficient of the interaction term in Model 5 in Table 3 is essentially zero. Adding the other three moderator variables leads to an increase of the coefficient of the interaction term (see Model 6). However, neither the coefficient of the interaction term in Model 6 in Table 3 nor the marginal effect of preferences for redistribution displayed in Figure 1d is significantly different from zero. [Figure 1] 20

Figures 1a to 1d thus display the expected patterns. Self-interested and strongly reciprocal individuals experience a tension between immigration and redistribution (although the effect narrowly ceases to be significantly different from zero in the case of self-interest), while egalitarians detect none. Finally, humanitarians do not oppose immigration (see Models 5 and 6 in Table 3). However, humanitarianism does not moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and opposition to immigration. For humanitarians, immigration and redistribution do not have much bearing on each other. Thus, the empirical evidence supports our claim that there are at least four motivations that moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration. Moreover, we observe these differences independent of an explicit link to immigration in the conceptualization of the four motivations. At the same time, we cannot observe an unconditional effect of redistribution preferences on preferred levels of immigration (see Model 1 in Table 3). However, as we have shown above, there is a systematic relationship between redistribution preferences and attitudes towards immigration, but this relationship is moderated by different and partly conflicting motivations. Conclusions Is there an insurmountable tension between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration? Well, that depends on your point of view! The main goal of this contribution is to show that motivations matter. More precisely, we argue that there are four motivations that moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration. We observe that self-interested (if they consider their interests hurt by immigration) and strongly reciprocal individuals (if they have a negative perception of immigrants morality) experience a tension between immigration and redistribution, while egalitarians do not experience such a tension. Finally, humanitarians express a general 21

willingness to help those worse off, immigrants included, but this motivation does not affect their preferences for redistribution. Whether there is tension between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration is a function of an individual s motivation. Our findings have important policy implications because the motivation strong reciprocity gives governments the possibility to diminish the perceived tension between immigration and redistribution. As we have shown, the widespread negative perception of immigrants morality matters. If individuals consider immigrants motives amoral, they experience a tension between immigration and redistribution. However, the popular image of societal groups is not set in stone. If governments manage to improve the popular image of immigrants as a societal group, the public perception of tension between immigration and redistribution is likely to attenuate. Of course, this also implies that opponents of redistribution (or immigration) have an interest in communicating a negative image of immigrants morality. If strongly reciprocal believe that immigrants abuse the system, they will either respond with less support for redistribution or less support for immigration. Thus, whether a political agent who consciously portrays immigrants as amoral individuals wants to stop immigration or redistribution is not per se clear. However, our empirical evidence can explain why most right-wing populist parties in Europe have attempted to link these two policy issues. We have demonstrated that there are in fact four socio-economic motivations that moderate the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration. We have argued that this is a least likely scenario for observing a multitude of motivations because the interaction between a respondent in a computer-assisted telephone interview and 22

a virtual immigrant is anonymous, non-recurring, and between individuals that are likely to consider themselves to be very different. Nevertheless, we observe all four motivations. As a consequence, our analysis provides strong evidence for the existence of considerable heterogeneity in the realm of motivations. This, however, has often been ignored by the empirical literature on what motivates people to support redistribution. Rather, most contributions have focused on only one motivation (self-interest) or at best two motivations (self-interest and some variant of a sociological model based on group adherence, norm compliance and values). In contrast, we suggest that the heterogeneity in the realm of motivations should always be taken seriously and modeled explicitly. 23

Table 1: Four motivations moderating the relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes towards immigration General willingness to help those worse off? No Yes General willingness to punish deviant behavior even at personal cost? No Self-interest Tension Humanitarianism No moderation Yes Strong reciprocity Tension likely Egalitarianism No tension 24

Table 2: Four motivations: Frequencies (percent) Self-interest Strong reciprocity Egalitarianism Humanitarianism It is not important to support people who are worse off It is not important to always behave properly It is important to treat every person in the world equally It is very important to help the people around you Very much like me 1.08 2.24 32.34 21.40 Like me 2.65 8.66 41.24 41.26 Somewhat like me 12.80 14.40 16.78 25.74 A little like me 28.32 23.76 6.34 8.95 Not like me 35.72 34.62 2.45 2.14 Not like me at all 19.43 16.32 0.83 0.51 N 35 083 33 677 33 808 33 792 Note: We have inverted the operationalization of self-interest and strong reciprocity for presentational purposes.! 25

Table 3: Determinants of preferred level of immigration Dependent variable Preferred Level of Immigration Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 Support for redistribution 0.002 0.002-0.002 0.011** 0.002-0.002 (0.557) (0.665) (-0.957) (3.715) (0.373) (-0.366) Self-interest - 0.011(*) - - - 0.006 (1.884) (0.996) Redistribution x self-interest - 0.001 - - - 0.002 (0.531) (1.171) Strong reciprocity - - -0.015*** - - -0.018*** (-5.073) (-6.448) Redistribution x strong - - 0.002*** - - 0.002** reciprocity (3.995) (3.506) Egalitarianism - - - -0.016** - -0.016** (-3.501) (-3.167) Redistribution x - - - -0.002* - -0.002* egalitarianism (-2.811) (-2.291) Humanitarianism - - - - -0.005-0.006 (-1.072) (-1.109) Redistribution x - - - - 0.000 0.002 humanitarianism (0.187) (1.636) Satisfaction with personal -0.024* -0.024(*) -0.022(*) -0.023(*) -0.023(*) -0.021(*) finances (-2.173) (-2.078) (-1.981) (-1.995) (-2.073) (-1.888) Satisfaction with economy -0.007*** -0.007*** -0.007*** -0.007*** -0.007*** -0.007*** (-5.725) (-6.233) (-5.970) (-6.735) (-6.037) (-7.418) Income -0.039* -0.042* -0.044* -0.047** -0.045* -0.049** (-2.281) (-2.491) (-2.839) (-3.007) (-2.855) (-3.268) Employment: unemployed -0.010-0.011-0.012-0.011-0.012-0.010 (-0.923) (-0.893) (-1.005) (-0.891) (-0.946) (-0.833) Employment: student -0.042*** -0.041*** -0.043*** -0.039*** -0.042*** -0.038*** (-7.654) (-7.429) (-7.146) (-7.250) (-7.450) (-6.507) Employment: retired etc. -0.003-0.002-0.003-0.002-0.003-0.002 (-0.721) (-0.517) (-0.709) (-0.372) (-0.532) (-0.353) Preference for cultural unity 0.182*** 0.181*** 0.177*** 0.174*** 0.180*** 0.168*** (18.792) (18.436) (17.534) (15.107) (16.675) (14.804) Preference for national 0.008*** 0.007*** 0.008*** 0.007*** 0.007*** 0.007*** authority (5.868) (5.680) (5.359) (5.220) (5.354) (5.068) Comparative estimate 0.026*** 0.026*** 0.026*** 0.025*** 0.026*** 0.024*** (immigration) (5.013) (5.127) (4.636) (4.510) (4.605) (4.427) Absolute misperception -0.107-0.106-0.107-0.110-0.109-0.119 (immigration) (-1.613) (-1.664) (-1.385) (-1.322) (-1.392) (-1.508) Comparative x absolute 0.052** 0.052** 0.051* 0.051* 0.052* 0.052* estimate (3.469) (3.654) (2.690) (2.475) (2.680) (2.719) Have immigrant friends -0.084*** -0.081*** -0.084*** -0.081*** -0.085*** -0.078*** (-12.022) (-11.567) (-11.209) (-11.096) (-11.027) (-10.630) Social trust -0.140*** -0.135*** -0.141*** -0.139*** -0.139*** -0.133*** (-17.929) (-16.874) (-16.577) (-18.716) (-18.507) (-16.957) Life satisfaction -0.021** -0.020** -0.021* -0.019* -0.021** -0.016* (-3.250) (-3.368) (-2.893) (-2.611) (-2.972) (-2.284) 26

Frequency of political -0.044** -0.035* -0.042* -0.036* -0.041* -0.025 discussion (-3.257) (-2.526) (-2.729) (-2.262) (-2.461) (-1.576) Conservatism 0.061** 0.065** 0.062** 0.053* 0.060* 0.057* (3.085) (3.307) (2.934) (2.595) (2.808) (2.709) Conservatism x political 0.030* 0.020(*) 0.024 0.024 0.027(*) 0.010 discussion (2.520) (1.762) (1.687) (1.705) (1.835) (0.644) Self-identified minority -0.013-0.010-0.008-0.004-0.007-0.003 (-1.331) (-1.110) (-0.661) (-0.318) (-0.565) (-0.300) Second generation -0.054** -0.054** -0.053** -0.049** -0.052** -0.051** (-3.050) (-3.124) (-3.157) (-2.960) (-3.061) (-3.088) Naturalized (> 10 yrs in -0.001 0.001-0.001 0.003-0.001 0.003 country) (-0.057) (0.072) (-0.059) (0.119) (-0.042) (0.170) Naturalized (< 10 yrs in -0.021-0.020-0.008 0.001-0.006-0.001 country) (-0.716) (-0.670) (-0.305) (0.033) (-0.212) (-0.033) Non-citizen (> 10 yrs in -0.020* -0.020* -0.023** -0.021* -0.022* -0.023* country) (-2.590) (-2.400) (-2.900) (-2.301) (-2.707) (-2.405) Non-citizen (< 10 yrs in -0.089*** -0.086*** -0.094*** -0.090*** -0.091*** -0.091*** country) (-6.631) (-6.743) (-6.908) (-6.915) (-7.331) (-6.581) Education -0.084*** -0.086*** -0.082*** -0.082*** -0.083*** -0.083*** (-5.417) (-5.577) (-5.006) (-5.400) (-5.218) (-5.319) Age 0.042* 0.048** 0.036* 0.042* 0.042* 0.041* (2.807) (3.201) (2.351) (2.715) (2.641) (2.645) Female 0.003 0.005 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.006 (0.653) (1.126) (0.394) (1.073) (0.714) (1.657) Constant 0.438*** 0.405*** 0.470*** 0.499*** 0.455*** 0.538*** (19.430) (24.946) (21.393) (21.923) (15.083) (30.395) Country fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Adj. R 2 0.304 0.308 0.301 0.309 0.301 0.314 N 27645 27537 26350 26432 26425 26140 Notes: Weighted OLS regressions (population weights) with country fixed effects and robust standard errors (clustered sandwich estimator). Country dummies are not reported due to space restrictions. t- values in parentheses. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, (*) p < 0.1. Data source: 2002-03 European Social Survey. 27

Figure 1: Marginal effect of preferences for redistribution on preferred level of immigration Note: Marginal effects based on Model 6 in Table 3. Dotted lines are 95% confidence intervals (onesided). 28

Appendix Table A1: Operationalization of control variables Variable Operationalization Theoretical expectation Satisfaction with personal finances Satisfaction with economy Income Which of these descriptions on this card comes closed to how do you feel about your household s income nowadays and If for some reason you were in serious financial difficulties and had to borrow money to make ends meet, how difficult or easy would that be? On the whole how satisfied are you with the present state of the economy? Using this card, if you add up the income from all sources, which letter describes your household s total net income? Negative (479) Negative (479) Negative (479) Employment: Using this card, which of these descriptions Positive (479) unemployed Employment: student applies to what you have been doing for the last 7 days? Negative (488, 493) Employment: retired No expectations etc. Preference for cultural unity Positive (480) Preference for national authority Comparative estimate (immigration) Absolute misperception (immigration) Have immigrant friends Social trust Using this card, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of these statements: It is better for a country if almost everyone shares the same customs and traditions. Policies can be decided at different levels. Using this card, at which level do you think the following policies should mainly be decided: protecting the environment; fighting against organized crime; agriculture; defense; social welfare; aid to developing countries; immigration and refugees; and interest rates. Compared to other European countries of about the size as [country], do you think that more or fewer people come and live here from other countries? Out of every 1000 people living in [country], how many do you think were born outside [country]? (minus the actual number) Do you have any friends who have come to live in [country] from another country? Using this card, generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you can t be too careful in dealing with people?, Using this card, do you think that most people would try to take advantage of you if they got the chance, or would they try to be fair? and Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful or that they are mostly looking out for themselves? Positive (480) Positive (480) Positive (481) Negative (488) Negative (488) Life satisfaction All things considered, how satisfied are you Negative (488) with your life as a whole nowadays? Frequency of political Still using this card, how often would you say Negative (488) 29